ReviewInternational journal of retina and vitreous2026
Evaluating the effectiveness of different topical anesthetic methods in reducing pain during intravitreal injections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in International journal of retina and vitreous, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe rapid rise in intravitreal injections (IVIs) for vitreoretinal disorders underscores the need to optimize the procedure and support long-term patient compliance. Patient-reported pain and discomfort remain significant barriers to adherence. This systematic review evaluates the efficacy and safety of various local anesthetic methods for mitigating pain during IVIs.
methodsConducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive search of PubMed and Google Scholar was performed to identify English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Eligible studies included patients aged 18 years and older receiving local anesthesia for IVIs, where pain was quantified using standard visual or oral analog scales (0-10 or 0-100).
resultsOur systematic review and meta-analysis included 14 RCTs comprising 1,300 patients. Analysis of topical lidocaine, tetracaine, and proparacaine formulations showed comparable analgesic efficacy, with all agents consistently achieving mild mean Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores. No clinically meaningful superiority was identified among these primary agents (p = 0.62). Adjunctive therapies, particularly physical cooling (e.g., ice patches), demonstrated significant pain-reducing potential. While oxybuprocaine alone was less effective, its combination with physical cooling achieved the lowest mean pain scores. Meanwhile, topical NSAIDs showed limited additional benefit. Regarding safety, subconjunctival anesthetic injections were associated with a significantly higher incidence of subconjunctival hemorrhage and chemosis compared to topical applications, suggesting that topical strategies provide a favorable safety and efficacy profile for routine intravitreal injections.
conclusionIn conclusion, this systematic review and meta-analysis confirms that no single topical anesthetic is superior for intravitreal injections; all primary agents provide comparable, effective pain control. Topical application is safer than subconjunctival injection, which is associated with higher rates of hemorrhage and chemosis. Consequently, clinical protocols should standardize low-risk topical methods and incorporate simple non-pharmacological adjuncts, such as physical cooling, to optimize patient comfort.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.